SafeSurfer wrote: » Loss of habitat for animals but increase in habitat for humans. Does the new green deal address population control? I didn’t see any placards at the marches yesterday calling for fewer people please.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » We are destroying everything. Look at loss of natural habitat around the world and the pollution in rivers and oceans, including our own back yard.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » And yes some kind of subsidies should be given to people like you to encourage this kind of thing.
Wibbs wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Loss of habitat for animals but increase in habitat for humans. Does the new green deal address population control? I didn’t see any placards at the marches yesterday calling for fewer people please. Indeed, the current very pervasive mantra in the west from business and politics is we must have more people and we don't have enough we must then import people from elsewhere. Instead of seeing a population levelling out or even declining slightly as a good thing, it is seen as some sort of emergency. Even here in Ireland where we have one of the highest birth rates in Europe we're getting fed this mantra from the great and the good(tm).
Rockbeast2 wrote: » Environment and climate are different things. I believe we must treat our environment better. I don't believe we can change the climate. Carbon Tax is a scam to pay for the influx of people into the Northern Hemisphere in order to keep the growth of share prices going.
Tell me how wrote: » I gave you one example around car use last night that helps the situation and doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in quality of life. Or how about, we ban disposable coffee cups, that'll help the environment and people can use reusable ones. Or how about if manufacturers were obliged to make devices which could be repaired. Less would be unnecessarily discarded meaning less new ones having to be produced.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Less people and population control means slowing down the economy which i am all for but it would probably lead to having less stuff so you wouldnt be happy with that either would you?
SafeSurfer wrote: » I wonder is there any derogation on emissions targets for countries who accept large numbers of refugees. It would seem unfair to penalise an altruistic country.
Rockbeast2 wrote: » Environment and climate are different things. I believe we must treat our environment better. I don't believe we can change the climate.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » There will be more real environmental issues as punitive taxation bites deeper. Why pay for rubbish collection when it can be dumped in a ditch or burned. When peoples backs are to the wall the last thing they care about is the environment.
MrMusician18 wrote: » All good ideas, but are tinkering at the edges really. Carbon is a big problem, and the problem areas are electricity generation, agriculture and transport. Renewable electricity generation is still more expensive than fossil thermal. There are no genuine technical solutions that are near cost effective to decarbonise agriculture And transport - nothing really happening in aviation or road haulage. Can see the electrification of the private fleet, but that just shifts the problem. Irish population is too dispersed for public transport to be efficient. A big tax on carbon or carbon rationing would force change, but since we cannot magic equivalent low carbon technical solutions out of thin air these would inevitably make the country poorer.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » MrMusician - how do you expect living standards to stay the same without messing up the whole planet or are you happy to be on that trajectory?
walshb wrote: » Just another fad that people have latched onto for attention, likes, approval and a sense of belonging... The earth is doing fine...the people? #georgecarlin..
Tell me how wrote: » Ok, on one side, we have scientists, the other, a comedian...... How do you decide who to listen to? Hmmmm? Also, he made that statement 10 years ago, things have gotten a lot worse since then, particularly in the area of losing animal species.
Micky 32 wrote: » Animal species go extinct throughout the earth's history.
New research shows that surveyed animal populations have declined by more than 50 percent on average in the last two generations.
Rockbeast2 wrote: » Living standards have gone down in Ireland in last 30 years.
Tell me how wrote: » Well, in the meantime we should do what we can instead of saying, there is no point because it won't fix everything. Also, this is a point which Greta herself has made repeatedly, the large scale solutions do not yet exist to fix all the problems, that is why we need to fund the development of alternative solutions. She was involved in a video released yesterday which suggests 3 central tenets of the fight to help the climate. Protect. Restore. Fund. In that video, the strongest claim to help things immediately, is to plant trees, I have seen this ridiculed in some locations but I think we should be doing it immediately and planting native trees or at least a mix instead of one type of spruce with no variation.
Tuisceanch wrote: » I keep seeing variants of the following argument "The climate has been changing since time began" insinuating that the human impact on climate change is negligible or irrelevant or that it's even a hoax. This is a very strange argument since nobody with any credibility would dispute that. An extract from the following link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php might help to illustrate that point. "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming." In brief it's the rate of change that is unprecedented. This would be a more useful starting point to base your arguments against the human impact on climate change.
lola85 wrote: » Seriously who the **** was around 1 million years ago holding a thermometer in the air?
Tuisceanch wrote: » The reply to my post was thanked by three individual posters! Do they all think that measurements of temperature were performed using a thermometer? Surely nobody in this day and age is that ignorant? I can understand someone being skeptical and suspicious about ulterior motives regarding the case for "Anthropogenic Climate Change" and its potential consequences but is this the extent of their argument? Is the educational system really that bad in this country (Republic of Ireland)? I can't believe that is the case so are these people being paid to spout this drivel or are they just trolls. Genuine question because in truth I could do with making some easy money on the side.
